A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Last year SPUC re-launched its information on charities as an online index, with new entries and updated information added as and when new information is received. Today's charity is Age UK.

Age UK was formed when Age Concern England and Help the Aged mergedin 2009. (Please see the entries in 2006 edition of SPUC's Charities Bulletin for life-related information about these charities).
In a letter from SPUC dated 23 July 2012, Tom Wright, Age UK's chief executive, said:

"Age UK has a governance framework, agreed by our Board of Trustees, to ensure both legitimacy and corporate ownership of our policy positions. The principles set out within this framework explicitly state that Age UK will not develop policy positions on certain matters, including matters which unnecessarily promote division amongst older people.

I can confirm that as a result of this Age UK does not have a policy position on euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor do we fund or support any campaigns in relation to these issues. In relation to your query on advanced directives, as you might expect, this is a subject on which we are asked for advice by older people and we have developed a factsheet...".

SPUC comment: As anti-euthanasia groups such as SPUC have pointed out over several decades, "one of the key problems with living wills [advanced directives] is their application in circumstances where it would obviously be contrary to best medical practice enacted in the best interests of the patient. It is no surprise that the pro-euthanasia people are very interested in living wills because they see an opportunity to use the denial of treatment - that would be encouraged as the content of a living will - as a form of soft euthanasia." (Dr Greg Pike, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, 7 August 2008)

Donegal county council back call opposing abortion legislation
The Donegal Daily reports that a motion has been passed by Donegal County Council opposing any form of legislation on abortion. The council resolved that: “In keeping with the will of the Irish people, as emphatically expressed in the referendum of 1983, Donegal County Council opposes any form of legalisation of abortion in any circumstances”. 17 councillors backed the motion, 6 abstained and one voted against. [Pat Buckley, 31 July]

Saturday, 28 July 2012

Tony O'Brien (pictured), one of the leading campaigners for the legalization of abortion in Ireland, and formerly chief executive of the Irish Family Planning Association, has been appointed Director General of Ireland's Health Service Executive. The Irish Family Planning Association is, of course, an affiilate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world's largest abortion-promoting agency.

Thus, IPPF has its feet firmly under the top table of Irish government. Read the blogpost of Pat Buckley, European Life Network Ireland director, for further information about the implications of this appointment and pro-lifers' dismay.

Last year IPPF launched It's all one curriculum. A quick review of that document shows the kind of policies which the Irish government might reasonably expect an IPPF man to promote as director general of Ireland's health service executive. I urge all Irish citizens, and all those who love Ireland, to read my earlier post on it.

It tells you everything you need to know as to what utterly corrupt and corrupting policies, targeted at young children, to which at least some in the Irish government appear to want to sign up.

The big question now is: Will Catholic church leaders stand up and be counted - in Ireland, or in Rome - and try to stop what is almost certain to happen to the Irish people unless they act?

Accommodation of the pro-abortion lobby, as we saw in 2009 with Archbishop Rino Fisichella, hasn't worked. It's simply served to embolden the most powerful political leaders in the world - Obama in the US, Blair and Cameron in Britain - who know that they can promote their abortion policies without fear of disapproval.

It's time to take Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of human life, on the duty to oppose the scandalisation and corruption of young people, off the shelf; shake off the dust on the pages which has accumulated after decades of lack of use; it's time to get up in the pulpits and out in the public square; it's time to speak the truth and to defend this generation's families and children - just as the Scottish bishops have done so well over the years and in recent weeks.

As my pro-life colleague in Ireland, Pat Buckley, said to me recently:

"Until now Ireland's fidelity to the Christian faith has helped it stand almost alone in Europe in prohibiting abortion. At the same time it has led the world in the reduction of maternal mortality. For both these reasons Ireland is hated by the forces of the culture of death which are preparing the imminent destruction of its pro-life laws."

The pro-life groups in Ireland are doing what they can. Will the Church speak out? will they help them?

Friday, 27 July 2012

The Catholic diocese of Brentwood website is advertising the annual conference of its Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility. The conference is to be opened by Bishop Thomas McMahon and it's to be addressed by Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham and Rainham on social justice issues. He is described in the media as a practising Roman Catholic.

If the Brentwood Diocese's Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility was actively planning to endanger vulnerable children, in the sense clearly understood and explained by Catholic teaching, they could not have done better than to invite Jon Cruddas MP, who has told Andrew Marr, the TV political journalist:

“I fully support the gay adoption proposals the Government put into place.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the other hand, teaches that allowing children to be adopted by couples in homosexual unions "does violence to these children":

"As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."

If the Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility had been actively planning to undermine the work of the Catholic Church and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in defence of the family, based on marriage - the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman - it could not have done better than invite Jon Cruddas to speak to their annual conference on social justice issues a man described as:

"Someone who believes ... that same-sex couples should be provided partnership rights equivalent to those of married heterosexual couples ... "

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has very clear teaching in respect of Catholic politicians and legislation in favour of homosexual unions. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says:

"If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

And if the Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility were actively planning to undermine the work of pro-life groups and Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, they could not do better than invite an MP who says he supports a woman's right to choose [abortion]; that he's perfectly happy with the current situation (which provides legal sanction for the killing of 550 unborn babies daily); and who has voted 18 times with the anti-life lobby, for example voting in favour of the anti-life Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act at second reading (which denotes approval for the bill's principles) - a law designed to kill millions of innocent human beings deliberately created never to be born.

Thursday, 26 July 2012

Today is the 45th anniversary of the Committee stage of David Steel’s Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill in the House of Lords. Although the pro-abortion lobby were buoyed by their success on Second Reading, things did not go quite as well as they had planned when the Bill reached its Committee stage.

Although Second Reading decides the principle of the Bill, the Committee stage opens the whole Bill to scrutiny and amendment, with the Bill being debated line by line and Clause by Clause.

Two major amendments were carried by the House of Lords against the wishes of Lord Silkin (who sponsored the Bill in the Upper House) and the pro-abortion lobby.

Things got off to a ominous start for Lord Silkin and his friends in the pro-abortion lobby when an amendment moved by the former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Viscount Dilhorn, that one of the two doctors required to certify an abortion under the Bill must be employed under the National Health Service as a consultant or must be approved for this purpose by the Minister of Health or in Scotland by the Secretary of State.

Viscount Dilhorne said the amendment sought to ensure there was the right medical advice and opinions of the right medical people before the operation was performed to ensure it was performed by a person well qualified to perform it.

Lord Silkin on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill argued that in his opinion the Bill as it stood was right. Abortions, he said, could be carried out only in institutions for the purpose. He added that the previous week (during Second Reading) 123 peers had wanted the Bill passed. They approved it. He argued that, quite frankly “time is against us and if we pass any amendments of which the Commons did not approve, we have effectively killed the Bill.” The amendments had all been discussed in the Commons who had come to the conclusion as it stood in the Bill.

Silkin begged the House not to play around with it now. He was prepared, if the amendments were withdrawn, to discuss them later and see whether they could find an acceptable form of words to be moved after the summer recess. This drew a rebuke from Viscount Dilhorn who said: “the noble Lord has not promised to put in any words at all. All he has done—and he has done it before—is to say that he would consider it seriously. I am rather tired of that formula. I know the noble Lord does 'consider seriously', but nothing ever happens on this Bill after that consideration.”

Despite the opposition of Lord Silkin, the pro-abortion lobby and of the Labour Minister, the amendment was carried by 116 votes to 67.

The second amendment carried by a narrow 87 votes to 86 removed the words which permitted an abortion if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the women’s existing children.

Viscount Dilhorn who moved the amendment said the provision was seeking to introduce as a justification for abortion a criterion wholly unrelated to the condition of the pregnant woman.

He said he found it difficult to visualise how the birth of a child could affect the physical or mental health of any existing child. Maybe little Willie would get so upset at the prospect of having a little brother or sister that his mental health would become disturbed, but that is no ground for terminating a human life.

Other amendments made on this day to the Bill included a re-writing of the conscience clause and at the request of the Home Office an amendment was carried delaying the commencement of the Bill by six months.

These two defeats led to a hysterical reaction by the pro-abortion lobby and their allies in the media who spoke of a constitutional crisis should the Lords amendments be rejected by the House of Commons.

During the summer recess, there was a campaign led by the pro-abortion lobby about a constitutional crisis if the House of Commons rejected the amendments and the Lords insisted on keeping them. At one point, there were even calls for the Archbishop of Canterbury to lose his Seat in the House of Lords.

During the Report stage (held on 23rd October, the first day back from the summer recess), the House of Lords reversed the two amendments to the Bill which they had approved in the Committee stage, and then went on to complete the Bill’s Third Reading.

In reversing the two amendments, they thus avoided a clash with the House of Commons which would probably have wrecked the Bill for the 1966-67 Session and could have caused - so the pro-abortion lobby argued - a constitutional crisis.

First the House of Lords defeated by 113 votes to 79 the requirement that one of the two doctors needed to agree on an abortion must be a National Health Service consultant. They had voted this amendment into the Bill in July by 116 votes to 67.

Later that day the House of Lords voted by 80 to 69 to restore the "social" clause, allowing an abortion on the grounds of injury to the health of children of the family. They had defeated this clause in July by a majority of one.

It seemed at first as if the House of Lords would stick with their amendments, led by Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Brock (president of the Royal College of Surgeons), the Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Longford, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (pictured above).

The first sign of weakening came when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, after speaking firmly against the deletion of the requirement of an NHS doctor, voted in favour of its deletion. Rebuked by Viscount Dilhorne, the Archbishop said he had been convinced by arguments during the debate and changed his mind.

Last year SPUC re-launched its information on charities as an online index, with new entries and updated information added as and when new information is received. Today's charity is Macmillan Cancer Support.

"Macmillan Cancer Support does not have a policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide. With regard to advance directives or living wills, we have an information page on our website, titled 'Advance decisions'."

As anti-euthanasia groups such as SPUC have pointed out over several decades,

"one of the key problems with living wills is their application in circumstances where it would obviously be contrary to best medical practice enacted in the best interests of the patient. It is no surprise that the pro-euthanasia people are very interested in living wills because they see an opportunity to use the denial of treatment - that would be encouraged as the content of a living will - as a form of soft euthanasia." (Dr Greg Pike, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, 7 August 2008).

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time
MPs who vote for David Cameron's gay marriage pledge will be punished at the general election, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to Mr Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraphhttp://goo.gl/fNQJn in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015. John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, commented: "There are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies." [SPUC, 25 July]

Other stories:

Abortion

Disability no longer to be legal ground for abortion, announces Spanish government [ThinkSpain, 22 July]

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

SPUC has responded to David Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph this morning in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015.

As I told the media this morning, there are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies.

Mr Cameron's speech reveals that his understanding of marriage and religion is woefully simplistic and ignorant. His mantra of 'equality' totally ignores the nature, history and role of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman ordered towards the procreation of children.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is outside Mr Cameron's remit as a political leader. The family - not the government - is the first and vital cell and source of human society, and is therefore a pre-political institution. By seeking to redefine marriage, Mr Cameron is also seeking to redefine the family, which is based upon marriage between one man and one woman. Mr Cameron is clearly doing his best to copy Tony Blair as a social engineering guru.

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

SPUC welcomes new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow
SPUC has welcomed the appointment of Bishop Philip Tartaglia as the new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow. John Smeaton, SPUC’s chief executive, commented: “Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been outspoken in the defence of the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of the family based solely on marriage between one man and one woman. We at SPUC look forward to supporting Archbishop-elect Tartaglia in his pro-life and pro-family ministry in the coming, challenging years." [SPUC, 24 July]

Other stories:

Abortion

Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin remains to be convinced that the Oireachtas should legislate for abortion in Ireland [Pat Buckley, 23 July]

A large group of Fine Gael deputies will oppose abortion legislation in Ireland [Pat Buckley, 23 July]

SPUC has welcomed the appointment of Bishop Philip Tartaglia as the new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow.

As I told the media earlier this morning, Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been outspoken in the defence of the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of the family based solely on marriage between one man and one woman. In 2011 he said that:

"[T]he fundamental human right is the right to life from conception to its natural end... [L]egalised abortion is the primary fatal injustice of our times, which has no place in a civilised society." (endorsement, 40 Days for Life 2011)

"Nature, reason and religion concur that marriage is uniquely the union of a man and a woman, which, by its very nature, is designed for the mutual good of the spouses and to give the children who may be born of that union a father and a mother ... Same-sex ‘marriage’ will change the nature of parenting. The normal mother and father model of parenting will be replaced in law and then gradually in culture by a non gender-specific model of parenting which will deprive children of their right to have a mother and a father" (pastoral letter, 4 October 2011)

We at SPUC look forward to supporting Archbishop-elect Tartaglia in his pro-life and pro-family ministry in the coming, challenging years. We thank Archbishop Mario Conti for the support he has given to SPUC and to the pro-life and pro-family cause over many years.

Monday, 23 July 2012

On 11 July 2012, over 500 mums streamed into the London Muslim Centre, to hear Dr Lisa Nolland, a leading family issues expert. Most of the parents had been active in collecting over 10,000 signatures for a petition calling on Tower Hamlets council to stop funding explicit sex education in the borough’s primary schools.

In a lecture titled, “Giving our children the best”, Dr Nolland gave a social historian’s analysis of how we come to have UK schools showing graphic cartoon sex scenes to young children in the classroom.

It all started with Dr Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), whose “sick-sex ideology” spread through Playboy, pornography, world sexual health organisations and into sex education programmes.

Dr Nolland encouraged parents to read up on this, to fully understand the background of what we are facing now.

In Dr Nolland’s view Alfred Kinsey’s legacy of perverted sexuality, including sexualising young children through explicit sex education programmes, can be seen today:

Friday, 20 July 2012

81 years ago tomorrow a Bill for the sterilisation of certain categories of "mental patient" was proposed in the House of Commons in 1931 by Labour MP Archibald Church as a Ten Minute Rule Bill. Church moved that leave be given to bring in a Bill to “enable mental defectives to undergo sterilizing operations or sterilizing treatment upon their own application, or that of their spouses or parents or guardians; and for purposes connected therewith.”

In moving his motion, Church claimed it was necessary to stop the reproduction of those "who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community". He added he would be failing in his duty to the House if he did not state that in his opinion, this Bill was “merely a first step in order that the community as a whole should be able to make an experiment on a small scale so that later on we may have the benefit of the results and experience gained in order to come to conclusions before bringing in a Bill for the compulsory sterilisation of the unfit.”

Opposition to the Bill was led by Dr Hyacinth Morgan (Labour MP for Camberwell Norty) who said:

“I rise to ask the House not to give leave for the introduction of this Bill. The House has heard a harrowing tale which is mostly moonshine. The Bill is said to be in advance of public opinion, but it is really in advance of common sense and ordinary sanity....If once the principle of maiming or mutilation is admitted, not for the benefit or health of the individual but for the good of others or the State acting for others, there is no brake to sliding down the slippery slope leading to the swamp of State penalisation, where we may get rid of all those obnoxious to the State. Those preaching subversive doctrines may have their tongues cut out. Those writing subversive doctrines may have their hands cut off. The State (those temporarily in power) are the dictators of limb and life. The eugenicist upon a pinnacle of intellectual snobbery, looking down upon the less fortunate mental defective, may gradually raise the standard of mental deficiency and push more and more citizens into the maelstrom of the mentally-maimed."

Dr Morgan concluded by appealing to the House to “refuse to give leave to introduce this pagan, anti-democratic, anti-Christian, unethical Bill.”

The House then divided and Major Church’s proposed Bill was defeated by 167 votes to 89. It is interesting to note that future Prime Minister Anthony Eden (then a back bencher) voted in favour of the Bill.

And in case anyone thinks that such blatant eugenic thinking in political circles is a thing of the past ... completely to the contrary, it has become part and parcel of the British political establishment, and now with lethal consequences on a grand scale:

In the UK 92% of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down's syndrome are killed by abortion. This has remained constant since 1989 when the National Down's Syndrome Cytogenetic Register began. Under the UK Abortion Act, a child deemed to have a disability can be aborted up to birth. These are sad and utterly unacceptable facts.

As recently as 18th October 2005, Caroline Flint, a junior minister of health under a previous government, told Parliament that a risk of repealing the Abortion Act 1967 (and thus, inter alia, the risk of making the killing of disabled unborn babies unlawful) would be an annual cost to the country of £5 million for the "cost to care for disabled children" (SeePartial Regulatory Assessment of The Prohibition of Abortion (England and Wales) Bill). David Cameron, meanwhile, the current UK prime minister, has made it clear that he supports abortion up to birth for disabled babies.

Thursday, 19 July 2012

On 1 and 2 July, a team of SPUC supporters climbed Britain’s three highest peaks – Ben Nevis, Snowdon and Scafell Pike – in order to raise funds for the Glasgow midwives’ appeal costs and SPUC’s other life-affirming work. (Make a donation over the phone, by cheque, or online . If donating online, select 3 Peaks Climb from the drop-down menu).

The ascent of Ben Nevis (4370 ft), Scafell Pike (2900 ft) and Snowdon (2400 ft) within 24 hours has long been regarded by many as one of the ultimate physical challenges in the British Isles. The challenge includes a total of 9670 feet of climb, covering a walking distance of approximately 25 miles, with 500 miles of travel by road between the peaks. [Heights given measured from the starting point of each climb]

Success depends on several factors, some of which can be controlled, such as personal fitness, scheduling to minimise climbing in the dark and using the correct equipment, food and clothing. But there are other factors over which one has no control; principally the weather and road and traffic conditions between the peaks.

The difficulty of this challenge should not be underestimated. It is easy to get lost, particularly when mountains need to be climbed in the dark or in poor weather. With full knowledge of what the challenge involved, a group of SPUC supporters from the Yorkshire Region conquered the peaks.

Report from Michael Hill, 5 July 2012

It would be quick and easy just to cobble together a few lines for the SPUC website confirming that this year’s sponsored challenge was completed successfully on 1st & 2nd July, who took part, and how long it took them.

But our sponsors deserve more than that. And having been personally involved with this event from the early discussions in 2011 through to the fond farewells in the middle of a rainy Welsh car park at the end of the challenge, I can tell you that every member of the challenge team deserve more as well - so hear goes:

William and Andy arrived for the final planning meeting a week before the event. Alex and Gavin had each sent their apologies but confirmed that they would be doing the Challenge. The four of us at the meeting reviewed the schedule, agreed travelling times, decided who would be responsible for the food and confirmed Sat-Nav postcodes. After the meeting we knew that the next time we would see each other would be at the foot of Ben Nevis in the Scottish Highlands.

Two days later I received a phone call from a total stranger, a young lady called Gina. She told me she had planned to do the Three Peaks Challenge but her team had cancelled, leaving her high and dry, and she was looking for another team to hook up with. Her search began on Facebook, which led her to contact a Hospice in Wakefield where a member of staff suggested she contacted SPUC. Bingo - how could we say no? Gina was obviously committed to raising funds for her charity and would go to any lengths to do it. That impressed me.

We met Gina and her mum, Gill, for the very first time in the Ben Nevis car park just one hour before the Challenge was scheduled to begin. We chatted together while we sorted our rucksacks, waterproofs and boots, and when the 5 o’clock start time came we set off up that first mountain not as strangers, but as friends.

Ben Nevis
Conditions on Ben Nevis were perfect on that Sunday evening in July, with blue sky, high cloud and sunshine. We had travelled through quite a bit of rain on the way to Fort William, so this was an unexpected pleasure. Climbing is physically challenging even in good weather, and it wasn’t too long before the breathing became laboured and conversation ceased. The girls pulled ahead of the boys to reach the summit first. We claimed that the spectacular views had delayed us, which to a degree was true, but I think the girls were just fitter!

There were a good few walkers on the mountain that evening, and being able to exchange banter and pleasantries with like minded people engaged in a common pursuit was another bonus. The only incident to mar the conquest of Ben Nevis was my fall. I was returning from the summit and not far from the finish, when I clipped a rock and toppled like a felled oak onto the rocks! I lay still for a while thinking I must have broken something. My left leg had taken the brunt of the impact and was numb. After a while I struggled to my feet. I had escaped a fracture, but had serious soft tissue damage. I knew I had to continue the descent if only to determine whether or not I was going to be able to complete the challenge. I desperately hoped I could. The others could tell something was wrong as soon as they saw me, and I told them what had happened. I would decide what I would do later.

After hot soup and sandwiches at ‘Andy and Sally’s Car Boot Café’ we all got into our respective vehicles and set off for the Lake District and Scafell Pike, 266 miles away. It would soon be getting dark but it remained dry - for a while.

The total driving distance between the 3 peaks is approximately 490 miles, which translates to a minimum of 10 hours driving at safe speeds. The travelling element of the challenge is crucial, so you can imagine what colour the air turned when we discovered that the route we had chosen was the subject of an unscheduled overnight closure. It was midnight, we had an extra 22 miles to travel, and it had begun to rain. The mood was changing.

Scafell Pike

The rain increased as we approached the National Trust car park at the foot of Scafell Pike. It was almost 4am and still dark, but the rest of the gang were already there and ready to go. Weather conditions at the bottom of Scafell were poor, and I explained to the team that conditions would be much worse on the top, but there wasn’t the slightest doubt – they were going for it regardless!

I had climbed Scafell Pike twice in the past, and I knew my knowledge of the route would be valuable to the team, especially in the dark and the rain. So despite my injured leg (hero that I am) I decided to accompany them to a place called Hollow Stones, about two thirds of the way up. From there they would be able to follow a chain of Cairns to the top.

I recognised that my personal challenge was at an end as I watched those four young men and women disappear into the wind and rain towards the summit. The weather worsened as dawn broke, and my descent was slow and painful.

Gina, Alex, William and Gavin all reached the summit safely, but did not linger as the wind chill factor was high. On their return, absolutely soaked to the skin, the team was greeted by the mouth-watering smell of bacon sandwiches. Yes, that’s right - ‘Andy and Sally’s Car Boot Café’ was open for business, but a full change of clothes was needed first. This is not easy in a car park, but with the aid of a towel and a strategically placed umbrella, modesty was preserved!

We left Scafell Pike dead on schedule at 7.30am, but arrived at Snowdon one hour behind schedule. This was due to an incompetent and un-cooperative Sat-Nav insisting we take the M58 instead of the M56. The rain and the heavy Monday morning traffic did nothing to improve the 222-mile journey, either.

Our only consolation was that it was most unlikely that we would suffer the same weather conditions on Snowdon that we’d had to endure on Scafell Pike (the words ‘Hope’ and ‘Eternal’ spring to mind here)

Snowdon

We were the last of our team to arrive at the Pen-y-Pass car Park. It was one o’clock in the afternoon and time was slipping away. The rain was coming sideways again. I just couldn’t believe our misfortune. But just like at Scafell Pike, there was simply no doubt in the team’s mind that they were going to complete the challenge, even in these most appalling weather conditions. Gavin and William had already set off on the Miners Track. Alex and Gina cobbled together some waterproofs, and chose the Pyg Track. By sheer coincidence all four met up at the summit for photos. Alex and Gina were the first to finish with William and Gavin not far behind. Again, these four young people showed tremendous grit and determination in the face of real adversity. They had completed the challenge half an hour outside their own schedule, but one hour inside the 24-hour limit!

Farewell

Sally presented each of the walkers with a chocolate ‘gold’ medal in a light-hearted gesture to mark their achievement, but they had given so much of themselves in completing this challenge that real gold medals would not have been out of place. After the presentation we bid a sad farewell to Gina and her mum. We didn’t know if we would ever see each other again, living at opposite ends of the country, but we knew that we had shared a very special experience, one that we would remember for the rest of our lives. It was a privilege to have been part of it.

Edmund Adamus, director for marriage and family life in the Westminster Catholic archdiocese, has an excellent letter in last weekend's Tablet on contraception and women's health.

It's worth reading in full and to note the chapter and verse he cites in making his case that "more and more evidence points to the negative moral and physical impact of contraception" as Edmund puts it.

Earlier this week, SPUC published an extensively researched document which provides the most up-to-date information on how certain forms of ‘birth control’ operate and whether they have an abortifacient effect.

And last week, I reported that the newly-appointed bishop of Portsmouth, Monsignor Philip Egan, has argued that Humanae Vitae is infallible, i.e. irreversibly and without error, by the Catholic Church's ordinary universal magisterium. Humanae Vitae is Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter on the regulation of birth published 44 years ago on 25th July 1968.

Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Mayor of Tower Hamlets to investigate explicit sex education programme in schools
The mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London has told parents that he will order an investigation into how £80,000 was spent on training and resources for an explicit sex and relationships education (SRE) programme for schools in the borough. Representatives from Tower Hamlets Parents' Action Group on SRE presented a petition of over 10,000 signatures from local people to Mayor Luthfur Rahman. Antonia Tully of the Safe at School campaign has supported the parents throughout the campaign. [SPUC, 17 July]

Last week Melinda Gates held a family planning summit, the focus of which was the promotion of contraceptive devices to women in poor countries. So far an estimated US$4.6 billion dollars has been raised by this summit to promote contraceptives in the developing world.

In this short video, produced by Human Life International, women around the world respond to Melinda Gates' controversial plans for them, and her supposed charitable assistance. Although the women in the video are addressing Melinda Gates, the same points they make could just as appropriately be made to David Cameron, who addressed the summit and whose government is spending huge amounts of money promoting contraception and abortion in the developing world.

SPUC has published an extensive briefing on how the British government, through the Department for International Development (DfID), has repeatedly spent tens of millions of pounds funding abortion and contraception overseas, at the expense of real care: food and basic medical care. Earlier this year SPUC held a conference with some of world's leading experts on maternal care. Sadly, their organisations do not have the backing of international governments and billionaires such as Melinda Gates.

Tuesday, 17 July 2012

The mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London has
told parents that he will order an investigation into how £80,000 was
spent on training and resources for an explicit sex and relationships
education (SRE) programme for schools in the borough.

Representatives
from Tower Hamlets Parents' Action Group on SRE presented a petition of
over 10,000 signatures from local people to Mayor Luthfur Rahman. The
petition calls upon the Council and the Healthy Lives team to stop any
further funding of the Christopher Winter Project, to recall all the
resources currently in schools and to ensure that schools consult with
parents about sex education. The programme is being used by 25% of the
borough's primary schools who responded to a freedom of information
request about sex education. (84% of Tower Hamlets primary schools
completed the questionnaire.)

The
mayor expressed his concern about the highly graphic content of the
Christopher Winter Project and has agreed to meet with key local
parents.

Antonia Tully of SPUC's Safe at School campaign has
supported the parents throughout the campaign. At the invitation of the
Tower Hamlets Parents' Action Group, she spoke at seven meetings in the
borough in the weeks leading up to the petition presentation.

Parents also called on Yusuf Patel of SREIslamic for support
throughout the campaign. Mr Patel told parents about the nature of the
Christopher Winter Project and the danger it poses to young children.

Later this week I'll be publishing a fuller report about the events in Tower Hamlets.

Monday, 16 July 2012

Can birth control cause an abortion, by stopping an unborn child from implanting in the womb? This question, of urgent importance to all pro-lifers, is answered today as SPUC releases "Contraceptives: what you need to know: birth-control (‘contraception’) methods which can cause abortion". This much-needed document, based on extensive research undertaken by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI), gives readers the most up-to-date information on how certain forms of ‘birth control’ operate and whether they have an abortifacient effect. SPUC urges all people who care about pro-life issues to study this and inform themselves and others of ways in which the very newly-conceived are under attack in hidden ways. More in-depth information can be found in SPUC's paper "Birth control methods which can cause abortion" (July 2012)

Sunday, 15 July 2012

At the invitation of Mrs Emma Clarke, Antonia Tully (pictured right), of SPUC's Safe at School campaign, spoke last week at a public meeting for parents of children in Northamptonshire. As a result of the meeting, attended by thirty mothers and fathers, the Caroline Chisholm Primary School has suspended its teaching of sex and relationships education.

Emma Clarke (who spoke powerfully at SPUC's packed meeting in Westminster last December Sex education as sexual sabotage, co-hosted by the Working Party on the Sexualisation of Children under the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group) and Antonia Tully informed the parents about the sex education video "Living and Growing". This video cartoon depicts a naked couple chasing each other around a bed and engaging in sexual intercourse in numerous positions. It is being shown to children between the ages of seven and nine, including in Catholic schools, without parents' knowledge or consent.

Emma Clarke reports:

"The meeting received considerable local media attention including a discussion and has caused Caroline Chisholm Primary School to issue the following statement to parents: 'To enable the school an adequate amount of time to consider feedback from parents we have taken the decision to suspend any teaching of Sex & Relationships education.We will review our current scheme of work in the autumn term.'

"This is a great success for our campaign and we plan to hold more local public meetings around the county to raise awareness amongst parents, we're also setting up a facebook page and website.

"Parents who attended our meeting were so shocked to discover what the school were planning to show their children (and already have in previous years) that another meeting has been arranged on Monday evening for more parents to view the Living & Growing DVD resource currently being used at the school."

Last Thursday I reported that Nick Gibb, the schools minister, confirmed in a letter to Antonia Tully, head of SPUC's Safe at School campaign, that primary schools are not required to teach children about sex in National Curriculum science lessons.

Saturday, 14 July 2012

Below are some quick-fire rebuttals by Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, to David Cameron's keynote speech to Melinda Gates' London Summit on Family Planning last Wednesday. Some of Anthony's other quick-fire comments on the Summit can be read via SPUC's Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/spucprolife Earlier in the week, SPUC issued a series of press releases and videos containing detailed arguments against the population control agenda behind the summit - see:

DC: "We’re here for a very simple reason: women should be able to decide freely, and for themselves, whether, when and how many children they have."

AO: Women can do this without contraception. The summit is about convincing women that they should avoid having children.

DC: "This is not something nice to have. Some sort of add on to our wider development goals."

AO: By prioritising contraception, the Department for International Development (DFID) is neglecting real development goals e.g. food.

DC: "It’s absolutely fundamental to any hope of tackling poverty in our world."

AO: There is no proof that contraception helps to tackle poverty. There is considerable evidence that large family sizes and growing populations help lift nations out of poverty.

DC: "Why? Because a country can’t develop properly when its young women are dying from unintended pregnancies and when its children are dying in infancy."

AO: Women don’t die from pregnancies. Pregnancy is a healthy outcome of a natural process. Women die from lack of basic healthcare. Contraception can’t save children from dying in infancy. It’s healthcare not contraception that saves lives.

DC: "As a result of this Summit, in the next eight years we will avert an unintended pregnancy every two seconds and 212,000 fewer women and girls will die in pregnancy and childbirth. That alone, frankly, is a good enough reason for us to be here."

AO: These are figures made up by the abortion-contraception lobby to justify its eugenics and population control agendas.

DC: "But there’s another reason why family planning is so important for development. When a woman is prevented from choosing when to have children it’s not just a violation of her human rights it can fundamentally compromise her chances in life, and the opportunities for her children."

AO: The issue of forced pregnancy (e.g. through rape or following a forced marriage) is a separate issue from contraception. This wrong is being cynically exploited by the abortion-contraception lobby to justify its eugenics and population control agendas.

DC: "Without access to family planning, pregnancy will often come far too early. In Sierra Leone, for example, a UNICEF survey found that a staggering two-fifths of girls give birth for the first time between the ages of 12 and 14. These young girls are not ready physically, emotionally or financially to become mothers. They don’t want to give up school or the chance to go on and run a business and build a better life for themselves."

AO: The evil there is statutory rape. Providing contraception will simply allow the rapists and child-marriage criminals to further their crimes.

DC: "And yet suddenly their dreams are broken as they become trapped in a potentially life-threatening pregnancy. Even if they survive, many are left with catastrophic scarring."

AO: Again, it is irrational to depict pregnancy, a healthy outcome of a natural process, to be life-threatening. Lack of basic healthcare is life-threatening.

DC: "They struggle to bring up children that are healthy and educated and they are likely to have many more children than they have the resources to look after."

AO: I thought the point of international development was to help mothers raise healthy and educated children and provide resources for them.

DC: "It’s a simple fact that as countries get richer, women generally have fewer children."

AO: Increases in population lead to countries become richer. The improvement in health following population-driven prosperity means that fewer children die and therefore couples are less driven to achieve more pregnancies.

DC: "And by concentrating their resources on a smaller number of children those children are healthier, better educated and more likely get a job and build a prosperous future for themselves and their own children. Family planning helps that process along."

AO: It simply doesn’t work like that. Smaller families result in fewer resources, because it leads to future shortfalls in workers who create profit, pay taxes, make products, care for the elderly etc.

DC: "The availability of contraception enables women to decide to have fewer children."

AO: Contraception has a massive real-world failure-rate.

DC: "And as fertility rates decline, having fewer children to support can help the economy to grow."

AO: Not true. The 20th century proved that economies grow as population rises.

DC: "We should be pragmatic about what works."

AO: Indeed. Contraception is based instead on the ideologies of sexual liberalism and eugenics.

DC: "In East and Southeast Asia, this reduction in children accounted for more than two-fifths of the growth in per capita GDP between 1970 and 2000. In Matlab in Bangladesh, a twenty year study found that a family planning programme together with improved support for maternal and child health led not just to smaller, healthier families but also to women being better educated and earning more and their families owning more assets with the average value of an educated woman’s home as much as a fifth higher than for women in nearby villages where this programme hadn’t been introduced. So we know this works. So family planning works not just because smaller families can be healthier and wealthier but because empowering women is the key to growing economies and healthy open societies -unlocking what I call the golden thread of development."

AO: Whole swathes of Asia are now ageing rapidly with no hope in sight. Korea is a dying society, filling more graves than cradles. Japan is the most rapidly ageing society in the world, with a elderly-care crisis with no solution. China is predicted to be the world’s first developing country that will become old before it becomes rich. Yes, support for maternal and child health and for education makes societies healthier and wealthier. But contraception impoverishes.

DC: "The UK government is taking a whole new approach to development. We know that in the long term we cannot help countries develop just by giving them money. Development cannot be done to the poor by outsiders. It has to be driven by the people who need the change. Our role is to help the poorest countries create the building blocks of private sector growth and prosperity. These building blocks are the same the world over. No conflict, access to markets, transparency, property rights, the rule of law, the absence of corruption, a free media, free and fair elections. Together these key enablers of growth make up the golden thread that runs through all stories of successful development across the world. And they are quite simply life changing. Curbing corruption means not having to pay a bribe to lease a plot of land. Transparency means that people can monitor whether revenue from natural resources like oil is being invested in roads or wells for their villages, or wasted. The rule of law means that a woman can go to court to settle a dispute knowing that her evidence will be given the same weight as a man’s. Free and fair elections mean that every citizen has a voice in their government and the opportunity to stand for office."

AO: So why are you pumping hundreds of millions of pounds into contraception instead?

DC: "But these vital building blocks of freedom and democracy can not be laid down without a transformation in the participation of women. Why? Because where the potential and the perspective of women is locked out of the decisions that shape a society, that society remains stunted and underachieving. So enabling women to have a voice is a vital part of improving governance and achieving sustainable and equitable growth. And this isn’t just the case in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is the case all over the world. A World Bank Study of 100 countries found that the greater the representation of women in parliament the lower the level of corruption. While one of the most powerful signs that real change was afoot in Egypt and Libya was when women turned up and made their voices heard, refusing to be confined to their homes while men decided their future. And one of the standards by which Egyptians will judge their new government must surely be the engagement and participation of women. Crucially, it is by empowering women that countries can unlock their economic potential. Studies show that limited education and employment opportunities for women in Africa mean annual per capita growth is almost a whole percentage point lower than it should be. Had this growth been achieved, Africa’s economies would have doubled in size over the last thirty years. Providing girls with just one extra year of schooling can increase their wages by as much as 20 per cent. And that really matters because a woman who can decide when to have children, will go to school for longer and then invest her extra money in her own family."

AO: But none of this has anything to do with contraception. The way to reduce teenage pregnancy is to promote abstinence, outlaw child-marriage, and enforce laws on statutory rape and the age of consent. The UK still has high rates of teenage pregnancy after decades of increasing provision of contraception.

DC: "When women have opportunity, resources and a voice, the benefits cascade to her children, her community and her country. So family planning is just the first step on a long journey towards growth, equality and development. But it’s an essential step – saving lives and empowering women to fulfil their potential as great leaders of change."

AO: Contraception doesn’t save lives; it prevents lives. It is insulting to women to tell them that they need pills, rubbers, coils etc to ‘fulfil their potential’.

DC: "So I am delighted that Britain is taking the lead – together with the Gates Foundation – to tackle an issue that has been ignored for so long."

AO: This is a complete myth. Western governments, wealthy foundations, UN agencies and abortion lobbyists have been flooding the developing world with contraception for decades.

DC: "Just like the money we gave last year through GAVI to immunise children against preventable diseases this aid is transparent and direct – it reaches the people who need it, and it doesn’t get caught up in bureaucracy. Last year’s vaccines summit is saving 4 million lives. This year’s family planning summit will prevent a further 3 million babies dying in their first year of life giving 120 million women and girls in the world’s poorest countries the chance to access affordable, lifesaving contraception for the first time. And I’m proud to say that Britain will contribute over £500 million between now and 2020 – doubling our annual investment in family planning. This alone will help 24 million women and girls preventing an unintended pregnancy every 10 seconds and saving a woman’s life every two hours."

AO: These figures are self-serving fantasies. In many developing countries, there are not even reliable statistics about the population in general, let alone accurate figures for estimates of healthcare outcomes. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

DC: "Of course there are some who will oppose this. There are those who will say we can’t afford to spend money on aid at a time like this. And there are those who might accept the case for aid, but who object to supporting family planning and the empowerment of women because they think it’s not our place to tell people what to do, or interfere in other cultures. I think it’s vital that we confront these arguments head on. Let me do so. First, it is morally right to honour our promises to the poorest in the world."

AO: We are unaware that the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, either separately or in the Coalition agreement, made any promises to bankroll contraception globally.

DC: "Every six minutes a woman who did not want to become pregnant will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Every six minutes."

AO: Again, this figure is a self-serving fantasy.

DC: "So how many minutes do we wait? I say we don’t wait at all."

AO: This is tear-jerking 'Mom and apple-pie' rhetoric, cynically wheeled-out to fool the naive.

DC: "But there’s not just a strong moral argument for keeping our aid commitment, there’s a second, more practical argument too. If we really care about our own national interest about jobs, growth and security we shouldn’t break off our links with the countries that can hold some of the keys to that future. For if we invest in empowering women in Africa as the key to driving trade and economic growth it’s not just Africa that will grow but Britain too. And that’s why I will always defend our spending on aid."

AO: This is another straw-man argument. SPUC does not argue against giving aid but against wasting aid on contraception.

DC: "As for those who say we shouldn’t interfere let me be absolutely clear. We’re not talking about some kind of Western imposed population control, forced abortion or sterilisation."

AO: Wrong. The UK government has for decades given tens of millions of pounds annually to the very same organisations which support and help manage China’s population control programme of forced abortion and sterilisation. In April, it was alleged that DFID money went to a forced sterilisation programme in India (Observer, 15 April). Melinda Gates' partners, Marie Stopes International and International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), were founded by leaders in the early eugenics and population control movements, and who were very open that they did not like the idea of poor people of colour having children.

DC: "What we’re saying today is quite the opposite. We’re not telling anyone what to do. We’re giving women and girls the power to decide for themselves."

AO: The easy availability of contraception enables predatory men and coercive relatives to pressure vulnerable women and girls into sexual activity.

DC: "Yes family sizes need to come down but they come down not because we say they should but because the women who have children want them to."

AO: This is a reversal of the UK government’s policy under Labour which claimed it was neutral about population sizes. In any case, what is the evidence that mothers want family sizes to come down?

DC: "And to those who try to say it is wrong to interfere by giving a woman that power to decide I say they are the ones who are interfering, not me."

AO: Most women around the world, including women in the developing world, already exercise the power to decide over the size of their family. They are not in relationships in which they cannot decide, in conjunction with their spouses/partners, to limit the number of children they conceive. In those relationships in which they cannot exercise this power, this is a problem relating to the nature of the relationship, not a lack of contraception.

DC: "I’m not dictating who runs her country. I’m not saying how many children she should have. What jobs she can do. How she can dress. When she can speak. It’s those who are imposing their values on women who are doing the interfering. I say that every woman should be able to decide her own future. And yes I say we should stand up against those who want to decide it for her."

AO: Mr Cameron is cynically adopting radical feminist rhetoric in order to caricature those who uphold traditional family values. He is pitting himself against the pro-life movement.

DC: "Because there are no valid excuses for the denial of basic rights and freedoms for women around the world."

AO: There is no international treaty or convention which declares that contraception is a basic right.

DC: "So what we are talking about today is the beginning of a much wider battle that will define our century. A fight for female empowerment and equality that cannot be won by having special separate discussions on women every now and then but requires instead that women are at the table in every discussion on every issue. In Britain, we are scaling up and re-prioritising resources for women and girls in all of DFID’s 28 country programmes. We have made a commitment to help 6.5 million of the poorest girls in the world to go to school. We are standing up for women’s rights against horrific sexual crimes, including through the campaign to prevent sexual violence in conflict which William Hague launched in May with Angelina Jolie. We are determined to end the barbaric practice of female genital cutting making it illegal in Britain leading the way in countries like Somalia where it affects a staggering 98 per cent of women and supporting the brave leadership of the first ladies of Burkina Faso and Niger who are here today. And I will personally ensure that the fight for the empowerment of women is at the heart of the international process I am co-chairing to renew the Millennium Development Goals. Because we know today just how important that empowerment is for women, for the well-being of their families and the future growth and prosperity of the whole world."

AO: Mr Cameron is again expropriating feminism as a background of justification for flooding the developing world with contraception. Women do not need contraception in order to be empowered, equal and protected. Indeed, contraception often degrades vulnerable women to the level of sex objects.

DC: "Just before I came onto this stage today I met Aslefe. Aslefe is an inspiring young woman from Ethiopia. She told me she is the captain of her village football team. She uses football matches to distribute materials, contraceptives and HIV prevention methods. She wants every woman and girl to have access to family planning and wants improved health systems in Ethiopia so girls her age no longer have to suffer."

AO: I think the vast majority of both children and parents in the world think that what Aslefe is doing is strange and that the normal thing for her to do would be to stick to sport.

DC: "She has hope in her eyes. She has ambition in her voice. She gives you that sense that she believes things really can change. Today we are investing in that hope for Aslefe and for girls like her all over the world. Their future will determine our future. And we will help them fight for it. Today and every day until that battle is won. Thank you."

AO: Mr Cameron has now overdone the tear-jerking, heartstring-tugging rhetoric here. More arguments and less Walt Disney please.

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.